| Re: [epl-discuss] Next Round of Proposed Revisions to the EPL |
|
On 10/7/2016 2:14 PM, Till Jaeger
wrote:
Am 03.10.2016 um 17:42 schrieb Jim Wright:Till, on your question on Section 2, perhaps the answer is simply to add the express right to prepare derivative works, provided that any portions of such derivative work which are comprised of the Program in whole or in part remain subject to the terms and conditions of the license? Let’s say a court decides that subclassing does create a derivative work. The license then provides that what they did is permitted and does not apply the requirements of Section 3 to the subclass…?This is exactely what I want to say. So I have read this thread carefully several times, and I have to admit that you have me confused. The structure of the EPL 1.0 is that anything which is a derivative work must be under the terms of the EPL 1.0. (I.e. it is a copyleft license.) However, (Till's opinion notwithstanding) the EPL 1.0 was always intended to be a weak copyleft license. It was drafted such that anything which is *not* a derivative work could be offered under whatever terms the copyright holder desired. Our desire is that the EPL 2.0 follow the same basic construct: Modified Works must be made available under the EPL 2.0; works which are not Modified Works can be made available under other terms. Given that, I don't see how granting an express right to create derivative works helps. In addition to the above, our motivation for using a defined term for Modified Works was to: (a) avoid the ambiguity of relying on the term, and (b) to eliminate the requirement to stipulate a choice of law. Adding "derivative works" back into the license runs counter to those objectives. If we can't resolve this in another email to two, I will suggest arranging a short call to discuss. Sometimes a conversation can save a lot of typing. Thanks for taking the time to help! |